CIT v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahar Roy (SC)

20 ITR 151Reported decision#9527 most cited
11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2023.

Issues it is cited on

section 2(15a)section 17(2)(iiia)section 2(1a)section 17(2)section 10(35)section 10(1)section 14a(2)beneficial ownerrule of consistencysection 17enduring benefitsection 30

Judgments citing CIT v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahar Roy (SC)

BAYER CROPSCIENCE LTD (SUCESSOR TO MONSANTO INDIA LIMITED MIL),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG- 10(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2302/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Riddhi Mishra
Section 10(1)Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

…ts shown by the assessee are agricultural receipts. The Tribunal has discussed the issue in detail. The meaning of agricultural income has also been discussed and by placing reliance on the decision of Madras High Court in the case of Maddi Venkatasubbayya in 20 ITR 151 and in the case of Associated Metal Co in 177 ITR 428(Alld) where the facts were identical decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy in 32 ITR 466 was also taken into consideration by the Tribunal. While discussing the ratio of these decisions in detail, the Tribunal ca…

JCIT (OSD)- 10(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. BAYER CROPSCIENCE LTD (SUCESSOR TO MONSANTO INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2124/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Riddhi Mishra
Section 10(1)Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

…ts shown by the assessee are agricultural receipts. The Tribunal has discussed the issue in detail. The meaning of agricultural income has also been discussed and by placing reliance on the decision of Madras High Court in the case of Maddi Venkatasubbayya in 20 ITR 151 and in the case of Associated Metal Co in 177 ITR 428(Alld) where the facts were identical decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy in 32 ITR 466 was also taken into consideration by the Tribunal. While discussing the ratio of these decisions in detail, the Tribunal ca…

BAYER CROPSCIENCE LTD (SUCESSOR TO MONSANTO INDIA LIMITED MIL),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG- 10(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3763/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Riddhi Mishra
Section 10(1)Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

…ts shown by the assessee are agricultural receipts. The Tribunal has discussed the issue in detail. The meaning of agricultural income has also been discussed and by placing reliance on the decision of Madras High Court in the case of Maddi Venkatasubbayya in 20 ITR 151 and in the case of Associated Metal Co in 177 ITR 428(Alld) where the facts were identical decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy in 32 ITR 466 was also taken into consideration by the Tribunal. While discussing the ratio of these decisions in detail, the Tribunal ca…

DY CIT, CC-7(1), MUMBAI vs. MRS. NITTA VINODKUMAR JATIYA , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 95/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Cc-7(1) Vs. Mrs. Nitta Vinodkumar Room No. 676B, 6Th Jatiya, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 1, Pearl Mansion (N), Mk Road, Mumbai – 91, Marine Lines, 400020. Mk Road, Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Accpj8343D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Sanjiv Jain. Dr Respondent By : Mr.Snehal Shah. C A. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Mr.Sanjiv Jain. DRFor Respondent: Mr.Snehal Shah. C A. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54B

…ral income. Only income from basic operations of cultivation land and requiring the expenditure of human skill and labour on land is agricultural income as held in CIT Vs Raja Benoy Kumar Sahar Roy (SC) 32 ITR 466, CIT Vs Maddi Venkatasubbayya & another (Mad) 20 ITR 151, Papaya Farms Pvt, Ltd. Vs DOlT (Mad)325 ITR 60 The assessees land is situated within the jurisdiction of Municipality of Panvel and is not assessed to land revenue. As per the Allahabad High Court in the case of Srnt, Anand Bala Bhushan vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax (217 ITR 144), the produce from this land is not agricultural income. In the case…

M/S. PHI SEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 4269/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri B.P. Jain, [Assessment Year: 2002-03] [Assessment Year: 2003-04] [Assessment Year: 2005-06] [Assessment Year: 2007-08] [Assessment Year: 2008-09] [Assessment Year: 2009-10] [Assessment Year: 2010-11] M/S P.H.I. Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Dy.C.I.T B – 4, Greater Kailash Enclave Circle 14(1) Part – Ii, New Delhi. New Delhi Pan : Aabcs 5374 D [Assessment Year: 2009-10] The Dy.C.I.T Vs. P.H.I. Seeds Pvt. Ltd Circle 14(1) B – 4, Greater Kailash Enclave New Delhi Part – Ii, New Delhi. Pan : Aabcs 5374 D [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2017

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Paramita Tripathy, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 10(1)Section 143(2)

…ts shown by the assessee are agricultural receipts. The Tribunal has discussed the issue in detail. The meaning of agricultural income has also been discussed and by placing reliance on the decision of Madras High Court in the case of Maddi Venkatasubbayya in 20 ITR 151 and in the case of Associated Metal Co in 177 ITR 428 (Alld) where the facts were identical decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy in – (2002- TIOL-150-SC-IT)=32 ITR 466 was also taken into consideration by the Tribunal. While discussing the ratio of these decisions…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PHI SEEDS (P) LTD., HYDERABAD

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 2223/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri B.P. Jain, [Assessment Year: 2002-03] [Assessment Year: 2003-04] [Assessment Year: 2005-06] [Assessment Year: 2007-08] [Assessment Year: 2008-09] [Assessment Year: 2009-10] [Assessment Year: 2010-11] M/S P.H.I. Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Dy.C.I.T B – 4, Greater Kailash Enclave Circle 14(1) Part – Ii, New Delhi. New Delhi Pan : Aabcs 5374 D [Assessment Year: 2009-10] The Dy.C.I.T Vs. P.H.I. Seeds Pvt. Ltd Circle 14(1) B – 4, Greater Kailash Enclave New Delhi Part – Ii, New Delhi. Pan : Aabcs 5374 D [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2017

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Paramita Tripathy, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 10(1)Section 143(2)

…ts shown by the assessee are agricultural receipts. The Tribunal has discussed the issue in detail. The meaning of agricultural income has also been discussed and by placing reliance on the decision of Madras High Court in the case of Maddi Venkatasubbayya in 20 ITR 151 and in the case of Associated Metal Co in 177 ITR 428 (Alld) where the facts were identical decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy in – (2002- TIOL-150-SC-IT)=32 ITR 466 was also taken into consideration by the Tribunal. While discussing the ratio of these decisions…

M/S. PHI SEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1903/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri B.P. Jain, [Assessment Year: 2002-03] [Assessment Year: 2003-04] [Assessment Year: 2005-06] [Assessment Year: 2007-08] [Assessment Year: 2008-09] [Assessment Year: 2009-10] [Assessment Year: 2010-11] M/S P.H.I. Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Dy.C.I.T B – 4, Greater Kailash Enclave Circle 14(1) Part – Ii, New Delhi. New Delhi Pan : Aabcs 5374 D [Assessment Year: 2009-10] The Dy.C.I.T Vs. P.H.I. Seeds Pvt. Ltd Circle 14(1) B – 4, Greater Kailash Enclave New Delhi Part – Ii, New Delhi. Pan : Aabcs 5374 D [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2017

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Paramita Tripathy, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 10(1)Section 143(2)

…ts shown by the assessee are agricultural receipts. The Tribunal has discussed the issue in detail. The meaning of agricultural income has also been discussed and by placing reliance on the decision of Madras High Court in the case of Maddi Venkatasubbayya in 20 ITR 151 and in the case of Associated Metal Co in 177 ITR 428 (Alld) where the facts were identical decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy in – (2002- TIOL-150-SC-IT)=32 ITR 466 was also taken into consideration by the Tribunal. While discussing the ratio of these decisions…

M/S PHI SEEDS PVT. LTD.,,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3670/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri B.P. Jain, [Assessment Year: 2002-03] [Assessment Year: 2003-04] [Assessment Year: 2005-06] [Assessment Year: 2007-08] [Assessment Year: 2008-09] [Assessment Year: 2009-10] [Assessment Year: 2010-11] M/S P.H.I. Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Dy.C.I.T B – 4, Greater Kailash Enclave Circle 14(1) Part – Ii, New Delhi. New Delhi Pan : Aabcs 5374 D [Assessment Year: 2009-10] The Dy.C.I.T Vs. P.H.I. Seeds Pvt. Ltd Circle 14(1) B – 4, Greater Kailash Enclave New Delhi Part – Ii, New Delhi. Pan : Aabcs 5374 D [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2017

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Paramita Tripathy, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 10(1)Section 143(2)

…ts shown by the assessee are agricultural receipts. The Tribunal has discussed the issue in detail. The meaning of agricultural income has also been discussed and by placing reliance on the decision of Madras High Court in the case of Maddi Venkatasubbayya in 20 ITR 151 and in the case of Associated Metal Co in 177 ITR 428 (Alld) where the facts were identical decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy in – (2002- TIOL-150-SC-IT)=32 ITR 466 was also taken into consideration by the Tribunal. While discussing the ratio of these decisions…

PHI SEEDS PVT. LTD.,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 5285/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri B.P. Jain, [Assessment Year: 2002-03] [Assessment Year: 2003-04] [Assessment Year: 2005-06] [Assessment Year: 2007-08] [Assessment Year: 2008-09] [Assessment Year: 2009-10] [Assessment Year: 2010-11] M/S P.H.I. Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Dy.C.I.T B – 4, Greater Kailash Enclave Circle 14(1) Part – Ii, New Delhi. New Delhi Pan : Aabcs 5374 D [Assessment Year: 2009-10] The Dy.C.I.T Vs. P.H.I. Seeds Pvt. Ltd Circle 14(1) B – 4, Greater Kailash Enclave New Delhi Part – Ii, New Delhi. Pan : Aabcs 5374 D [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2017

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Paramita Tripathy, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 10(1)Section 143(2)

…ts shown by the assessee are agricultural receipts. The Tribunal has discussed the issue in detail. The meaning of agricultural income has also been discussed and by placing reliance on the decision of Madras High Court in the case of Maddi Venkatasubbayya in 20 ITR 151 and in the case of Associated Metal Co in 177 ITR 428 (Alld) where the facts were identical decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy in – (2002- TIOL-150-SC-IT)=32 ITR 466 was also taken into consideration by the Tribunal. While discussing the ratio of these decisions…

PHI SEEDS LTD vs. ACIT COY CIRCLE 14 (1),

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 4383/DEL/2006[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2017AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri B.P. Jain, [Assessment Year: 2002-03] [Assessment Year: 2003-04] [Assessment Year: 2005-06] [Assessment Year: 2007-08] [Assessment Year: 2008-09] [Assessment Year: 2009-10] [Assessment Year: 2010-11] M/S P.H.I. Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Dy.C.I.T B – 4, Greater Kailash Enclave Circle 14(1) Part – Ii, New Delhi. New Delhi Pan : Aabcs 5374 D [Assessment Year: 2009-10] The Dy.C.I.T Vs. P.H.I. Seeds Pvt. Ltd Circle 14(1) B – 4, Greater Kailash Enclave New Delhi Part – Ii, New Delhi. Pan : Aabcs 5374 D [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2017

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Paramita Tripathy, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 10(1)Section 143(2)

…ts shown by the assessee are agricultural receipts. The Tribunal has discussed the issue in detail. The meaning of agricultural income has also been discussed and by placing reliance on the decision of Madras High Court in the case of Maddi Venkatasubbayya in 20 ITR 151 and in the case of Associated Metal Co in 177 ITR 428 (Alld) where the facts were identical decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy in – (2002- TIOL-150-SC-IT)=32 ITR 466 was also taken into consideration by the Tribunal. While discussing the ratio of these decisions…

PHI SEEDS LTD. vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-14(1),,

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1988/DEL/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2017AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri B.P. Jain, [Assessment Year: 2002-03] [Assessment Year: 2003-04] [Assessment Year: 2005-06] [Assessment Year: 2007-08] [Assessment Year: 2008-09] [Assessment Year: 2009-10] [Assessment Year: 2010-11] M/S P.H.I. Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Dy.C.I.T B – 4, Greater Kailash Enclave Circle 14(1) Part – Ii, New Delhi. New Delhi Pan : Aabcs 5374 D [Assessment Year: 2009-10] The Dy.C.I.T Vs. P.H.I. Seeds Pvt. Ltd Circle 14(1) B – 4, Greater Kailash Enclave New Delhi Part – Ii, New Delhi. Pan : Aabcs 5374 D [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2017

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Paramita Tripathy, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 10(1)Section 143(2)

…ts shown by the assessee are agricultural receipts. The Tribunal has discussed the issue in detail. The meaning of agricultural income has also been discussed and by placing reliance on the decision of Madras High Court in the case of Maddi Venkatasubbayya in 20 ITR 151 and in the case of Associated Metal Co in 177 ITR 428 (Alld) where the facts were identical decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy in – (2002- TIOL-150-SC-IT)=32 ITR 466 was also taken into consideration by the Tribunal. While discussing the ratio of these decisions…

CIT v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahar Roy (SC) (20 ITR 151) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax